This Monday is the fourth anniversary of America's war against Iraq. The Nation vigorously and rigorously opposed the war before it began. In "An Open Letter to Congress," published on the eve of the vote on the war resolution, we wrote, "the case against the war is simple, clear and strong."
As we mark what may well be the most colossal foreign policy disaster
in US history, we mourn the death and destruction--which has not ended.
We mark the lies and delusions that launched this war--since they too
are continuing.
The majority of the American people have found their way to the truth
and are demanding an end to this catastrophe. Yet the political system
continues to crawl hesitantly toward accepting the enormity of this
failure.
The political battle is joined in Congress as the House approaches a
fateful vote on how to compel withdrawal through legislation on
military appropriations. We applaud those who seek to defend the
principles of a fully funded withdrawal. Yet we also understand that
the new Democratic majority is struggling to find ways to force the
President ‘s hand and an exit from his wrongful war. It will be a long
and tortuous process---judging from the painful political calculations
the House leadership is making to cobble together a compromise bill.
As the House grapples with legislative maneuvers it is worth
remembering that from the start of this war four years ago, House
Democrats stood tall and bravely alone. A substantial majority opposed
the original war authorization and their initial skepticism has been
fully confirmed by subsequent events.
But as we mark the anniversary of the Iraq war, it is also time to
consider the longterm damage the misconceived "war on terrorism" has
inflicted on our security and engagement with the world. Eventually US
troops will leave Iraq because the brutal facts on the ground will
compel it. But even as we struggle to get out of this failed war, our
political system continues to evade the challenge of finding an exit
from the "war on terror." At a time when we need a coherent alternative
to the Bush doctrine and an alternative vision of what this country's
role in the world should be, we see both parties calling for
intensifying the "war on terror" --even for increasing the size of the
military, and for expanding its ability to go places and do things. But
who is asking the fundamental question: Won't a war without end do more
to weaken our security and democracy than seriously address the threats
and challenges ahead?
Witness the collateral damage to our democracy. This Administration
has used the "war" as justification for almost anything--unlawful
spying on Americans, illegal detention policies, hyper-secrecy,
equating dissent with disloyalty and condoning torture.
The Administration has also justified the expansion of America's
military capacity---over 700 bases in more than 60 countries, annual
military budgets topping $500 billion -- as necessary to counter the
threat of Islamic extremism and to fight the "war on terror." What too
few politicians are willing to say is that combating terrorism-- a
brutal, horrifying tactic -- is not a "war" and that military action is
the wrong weapon. Illegality and immorality aside, it simply doesn't
succeed. Yes, terrorism does pose a threat to national and
international security that can never be eliminated. But there are far
more effective (and ethical) ways to advance US security than a
forward-based and military-heavy strategy of intrusion into the Islamic
world. Indeed, the failed Iraq war demonstrated anew the limits of
military power.
Fighting terror requires genuine cooperation with other nations in
policing and lawful and targeted intelligence work; smart diplomacy;
withdrawal of support for oppressive regimes that generate hatred of
the US; and real pressure to bring about negotiations between Israelis
and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for
Israel and justice and a secure state for the Palestinians. (There are
other effective means of combating terrorism; what is important is that
they are harnessed and coordinated so as to provide a true alternative
to hyper-military ventures.)
It is also worth remembering as we mark this anniversary that
military invasion and occupation, and crusades masquerading as foreign
policy, divert precious resources from real security. Four years ago,
the doubts and warnings about military action in Iraq were brushed
aside (including those clearly and consistently expressed by the Nation). Now that reality has confirmed the argument, isn't it time to act on the knowledge?
Alongside the get-out-of-Iraq debate, the political system needs a
parallel debate that lays out how we will exit this "long war" --which
is a formula for unlimited militarization and recurring wars. (As an
industrial project for the arms industry, it could be even more
open-ended than the Cold War.) We need a debate that confronts the
danger of inflating a very real, but limited threat of terrorism into
an open-ended global war, to be fought simultaneously on countless
obscure battle fronts, large and small, visible and secret.
Major political leaders in both parties continue to buy into a view
of US global supremacy--the "indispensable nation" scenario. They were
silent when the Pentagon opened a new "Africa Command" to hunt down
Islamists on that continent. Nor they did object when CIA gunships
bombed villages earlier this year in Somalia. When Bush announced
intentions to increase Army troop strength by 90,000, Democrats boasted
it was their idea first.
To what end? These new troops won't be available for Iraq. Are they
for the next war or occupation? The delusion of military power is
deeply rooted.
We would do better --both in addressing the danger of a wider
sectarian war with failing regimes in the Middle East, and in combating
terrorism-- to reduce the heavy US military and geopolitical footprint
in the region. That means withdrawing US forces from Iraq and
organizing regional diplomacy, including with Iran and Syria, to
contain the civil war from spreading to other countries in the region.
It would mean addressing the legitimate grievances that arouse the
passions of many in the Islamic world, especially Israel's occupation
of the West Bank. And it would mean changing the conversation with the
people of the Arab and Islamic worlds from the danger of extremism to
the promise of more economic opportunity.
A purposeful opposition must form to rethink America's role in the
world. There are large and fateful questions to confront: What kind of
country does the US want to be in the 21st century? Republic or Empire?
Global leader or global cop? Where, as Sherle Schwenninger asked in the Nation's
pages a few years ago, "is the America that is less one of warrior and
preacher/proselytizer and more one of architect and builder?" How can
America act like an imperial power in a post-imperial world? Much can
be accomplished by focusing on the questions that conventional opinion
ignores. And starting the discussion/debate now can help establish new
terms and limits for the next president elected in 2008.
Concretely, Congress should be pushed to take legislative action to
renounce the Bush doctrine of "preventive war" enunciated before he
invaded Iraq. As The Nation warned in our "Open Letter to the Members of Congress"
on the eve of the 2002 war resolution vote, "the decision to go to war
has a significance that goes far beyond the war....It declares a policy
of military supremacy over the entire earth--an objective never
attained by any power. ...The new policy [of preventive war] reverses a
long American tradition of contempt for unprovoked attacks. It gives
the United States the unrestricted right to attack nations even when it
has not been attacked by them and is not about to be attacked by
them...It accords the US the right to overthrow any regime--like the
one in Iraq--it decided should be overthrown...It declares that the
defense of the US and the world against nuclear proliferation is
military force." Declaring the Bush doctrine of endless war defunct
will not solve the problems posed by Iraq, but it will reduce the
likelihood that we will see more Iraqs in our future.
With the 2008 elections looming, it is unlikely that the Democrats
(with a few honorable exceptions) will rethink their official national
security strategy in any significant way. But citizens committed to a
vision of real security can launch a debate framed by our own concerns
and values. If we have learned anything in the past six years, it is
that even overwhelming military power is ill suited to dealing with the
central challenges of the 21st century: climate crisis, the worst
pandemic in human history (AIDS), the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, stateless terrorists with global reach, genocidal conflict
and starvation afflicting Africa, and a global economy that is
generating greater instability and inequality.
A real security plan would widen the definition to include all
threats to human life, whether they stem from terrorism, disease,
environmental degradation, natural disasters or global poverty--a
definition that makes it clear that the military is only one of many
tools that can be used to address urgent threats. A last resort. This
alternative security strategy would also reconfigure the US presence in
the world – reducing the footprint of American military power, pulling
back the forward deployments drastically and reducing the bloated
Pentagon budget by as much as half.
Yes, at home, all this will take time and have to overcome the
fiercest kind of political resistance. Yet this is not an impossible
political goal, now that Americans have seen where the military option
leads. Dealing intelligently with reality is not retreat. It is the
first wise step toward restoring real national security.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is the editor of The Nation.
###
